Dan Hamhuis is doing just fine in John Tortorella's new system. (Image via Ward Perrin)

The Canucks completed a successful weekend all-in-all when they finished off a sweep of Alberta's professional hockey teams on Sunday evening. They went into the Saddledome, sat through some terribly boring player introductions of a bunch of dudes I'm only vaguely familiar with, snoozed through the first 2 periods of play, and then made a furious comeback en route to an Overtime victory.

Just past the jump are the scoring chances totals, and some other interesting numbers that I figured were worth mentioning. You might find them interesting, too.

The Numbers:

In last night's recap, I mentioned that Hamhuis had a rough first period before the coaching staff mixed up the defensive pairings, putting him with Tanev (and Bieksa with Stanton as a result). In the recap of the season opener against the Sharks, I also made a point of noting that Hamhuis looked uncharacterstically off in that particular game. He has seemed to be pinching a ton more than usual, which has been leaving him out of position. At least that's what my eyes have been telling me.

Judging from my Twitter timeline last night, I'm not alone in the opinion that we haven't really seen the Dan Hamhuis we've become accustomed to in recent years. Our eyes seem to be deceiving us, though:

#Canucks controlled 67% of shot attempts with Dan Hamhuis on the ice. Lack had a .714 sv%. WHAT'S WRONG WITH HAMHUIS THIS YEAR?

It's true. Hamhuis has been absolutely crushing it in the possession game thus far. Guess it turns out that he's not really struggling in John Tortorella's new system after all.

It's also worth giving Mike Santorelli some props. He was the beneficiary of some line juggling, and found himself playing next to Henrik Sedin in the 3rd period. Sure, he scored 2 goals (including the winner in OT), but check out his possession numbers: 19 shot attempts for, 9 shots against. He killed it. So did Chris Tanev; I got on his case after a poor showing in the season opener, so now I've got to give him credit for a strong performance. It probably doesn't hurt that he spent most of the game playing with Dan Hamhuis.

Also, I have no idea what on earth happened to Chris Higgins when his underlying metrics plummeted last season, but it looks like he's back, baby. He's once again driving play (13.6 Corsi Relative) while facing tough competition (2.323 Corsi Rel QoC, 34.4 Offensive Zone Start %), which is surely a welcome sight for the Canucks. He better invite Ryan Kesler over for Thanksgiving dinner this Sunday.

I think most of the D are still adjusting. All have had their moments. With Hamhuis, I've noticed his usually buttery footwork isn't quite where it should be. All of them, at times seem too focused on the puck. When it's on Auto-pilot or instinct, then the focus is on being in the right position to make the right play.
I remember mentioning before the season that, from the Rangers games I watched which was quite a few, Torts liked to juggle his D pairings. I think this is great that it's happening so early. It will shift the focus to each position and less on the pairings while they are learning.
Another thing, you adavanced stats guys should be in glee today. Last night he gave you the birth of a new statistic....the Sedin together and apart comparison. What could be more exciting than that.

Thanks for writing this Dimitri. I'm one of those old school guys that is just getting into advanced analysis and so far your guidance has been invaluable...along with some Drance guy.

Wouldn't it be fair to state that baseball and hockey are two very different games, the former consisting almost entirely of discrete interactions between two individuals, and the latter consisting almost entirely of flowing systems play involving chaotic interactions between (generally) 12 individuals?

Further, wouldn't it be fair to describe a coach's role in such different games as, well, fundamentally different?

Could we then infer that quoting baseball statstics has almost no positive value in assessing hockey?

A fair inference would then be that quoting a baseball analogy has no value when discussing hockey?

(The article you linked does nothing to connect hockey and baseball besides hand waving a comparison.)

((Sorry, a bit harsh there, but seriously, two different sports. Not comparable.))

They controlled 67% of shot attempts with Hamhuis on the ice and that is pretty damn good. But that doesn't mean the 33% against just disappears. It could be that those shots against had more impact on the game despite there being less of them.

If you take two shots from the point yet give up just one shot from the slot you're controlling more shot attempts, but also giving up a higher quality chance.

I haven't gone back and watched the game, but couldn't Lack's .714 sv% with Hamhuis on the ice be due in part to mistakes made by Hamhuis? I know over time there'll be enough variance to show Hamhuis' true level of play, but I don't think a couple of weaker games from him should just be blamed on netminding or luck and be dismissed right away.

They controlled 67% of shot attempts with Hamhuis on the ice and that is pretty damn good. But that doesn't mean the 33% against just disappears. It could be that those shots against had more impact on the game despite there being less of them.

If you take two shots from the point yet give up just one shot from the slot you're controlling more shot attempts, but also giving up a higher quality chance.

I haven't gone back and watched the game, but couldn't Lack's .714 sv% with Hamhuis on the ice be due in part to mistakes made by Hamhuis? I know over time there'll be enough variance to show Hamhuis' true level of play, but I don't think a couple of weaker games from him should just be blamed on netminding or luck and be dismissed right away.

No.

Defensemen have a negligible impact on shot quality against, if at all. ~1%.

We have years of evidence suggesting that Hamhuis is a borderline elite D-man. It's not likely that he suddenly became a journeyman.

It's far more likely that he's been unlucky, especially when the largest sample suppporting evidence we have for this season (corsi) lines up with what we already know.

Why are we to assume that a new middle manager is going to be better at pushing buttons than the previous one?

"you have to have a general idea of how much a head coach at the National Hockey League level is able to contribute to a win.

In baseball, the consensus among the statistically set is that managerial strategies aren’t all that important to the outcome of a game. There’s such a large selection of samples in the game of baseball that you can figure out the most likely outcome for any forseeable situation based on past results. Even though it doesn’t always happen, as long as the percentages are played, that is to say the manager sets situations up to increase the likelihood of the most positive outcomes possible, then a manager is doing his job as far as strategy goes. But even when he doesn’t do his job, there’s such a large amount of randomness in baseball that he can essentially get away with it."

Yes, defence are still adjusting, especially noticed that in first two periods. On the positive side, one d-man from the Calgary game I was impressed with was Stanton, he looked really good I thought. I know it is early, but he is a tough, relatively young talent, who knows, maybe he turns out to be one of those waiver gems.

Irrespective of his media perception, he seems like a nice enough guy.

I'd say the same about AV.

They both seem competent.

Though I couldn't tell you the tangible difference between the two guys in terms of their coaching abilities.

Swapping the coach is fine. Perhaps the issue really is that AV did not manage the assets that Gillis has given him...

But I doubt it.

And, speaking in general terms, I don't think a middle management change should make any of us expect a better result with an inferior (and older) roster.

Gillis was smart to keep AV for as long as he did.

I suspect his own clock didn't start until AV was fired.

And, assuming he retains the Sedins, his job may very well be secure for another 2-3 years even if this team continues sliding down the mountain...

Personally, I think that you are probably closer to the truth about coaches. While they do make some significant changes that impact how the game is played (what type of formation used for PK, PP, etc.) if one or two tactics were superior to all others, everyone would be using them. I imagine that they all have advantages, and that those advantages are situational.

As for this roster being inferior to last season's, I'd have to disagree with you on two points. Firstly, third & fourth line talent is largely a question of matching talent to play schemes. To take another team as example, the Leafs will arguably have a more effective 3rd line with Bolland than they did last year with Grabbo, despite Grabbo being a superior player, because Bolland is capable of playing the game demanded of him by the system and Grabbo was not. So we'll see if the lines match Torts' expectations of them better than last season's did of AV's strategies.

Secondly, this team's inferiority can only be true in absolute terms if Kesler & Booth miss the vast majority of the season again. If Kess plays 75 games & contributes an average 23 goals the team is miles ahead of where they were last season. If Booth can provide 10+ goals on the 3rd line, the team is ahead again. Stanton is better than Alberts. Tanev is growing. Burrows will produce better if he doesn't play significant minutes in the middle. More is expected of Hansen & Garrison.

In total, I'd say that about 1/4 of the team is expected to improve under Torts; statistically, the Sedins will likely recede a bit (+/- 80 points).

5 months of planned resetting? LOL Sorry, the planning took years starting with the first day Gillis and AV got here. All you're seeing is the fruits of a crappy seed planted years and years ago. It's time to sell the farm.

Player effects on save percentage make intuitive sense, but basically don't actually exist.

The roughly 20% difference (actual sp 714, expected 914) is luck.

Remember that in order to get to the NHL, as a defender you have to be pretty damn good at prebenting quality chances against. Elite, you might say. Within that paradigm, it makes more sense that there's little difference between NHL defensemen.

I still say you have to give the team a bit of time before you see the real Canucks under Torts.I like how he broke up the Sedins and made some subtle switches that worked.

It is odd how we didn't bother calling up anyone from Utica and Weber slides on to line 4. Ah well.

Hopefully we have a better showing against the Shark this week!

I agree. The sample size is still too small, and the team is just starting to adjust to Torts

Big questions for the next 2 months
- Can the team keep up with their puck pursuit game
- will Kassian make the leap (once he starts paying again)
- will Kessler/Booth stay healthy
- Will the Castoffs keep making a positive contribution (and I dont just mean Richardson and Santorelli)
- Will Lack keep playing well

I want to see a few more games against SJ, LA, and some of the other good teams to make a better judgement.

Well, that is the question. The team went from nowhere to suddenly dominating in the playoffs in a manner not seen in decades. Now, we have seen before with teams barely making the playoffs only to excel (and vice versa), and the composition of the opposition always plays a huge role, and many can argue the Kings has it somewhat easier than could be otherwise. What if they faced Chicago in conf finals instead of overachieving Phoenix? What if Boston or NYR made it to the final instead of overachieving Devils?

My take on Sutter would be that he gave them a different perspective and for whatever reason things clicked at the right time. Would that have happened if Murray was still there? Maybe. Did the team, which apart from The Carter deal, was the same, just need a bit more time to gel into what they were meant to be? Possibly.

>> Don't worry the results are coming...
Absolutely, stay tuned... We will see how this all works out.

Yes, defence are still adjusting, especially noticed that in first two periods. On the positive side, one d-man from the Calgary game I was impressed with was Stanton, he looked really good I thought. I know it is early, but he is a tough, relatively young talent, who knows, maybe he turns out to be one of those waiver gems.

Reading up a bit more about why Chicago waived him. The coach liked him, but the defensemen they already have are are too good. Still, it is early, and lets see him when they play the better teams.

If you want to isolate the difference between Boudreau and Hunter, I need a lot more than simply putting their names side by side...

Espescially since coach A and coach B never coach the exact same team (players age for better or worse, rosters turnover etc).

As it stands, it's anecdotal.

The "comparison" I'm making is to show that the sabermetric community, to which the hockey analytical community should be paying close attention, scoffs at the notion that performance is based on managerial button pushing.

So, for example, if one wants to argue that Torts appears to be on the right track by using Garrison on the 1st PP, I can get behind that.

Aside from that, this is an inferior roster to the one that lost to San Jose a few months ago.

Specifically, but not limited to, the goaltending tandem which should be expected to produce a smaller save percentage advantage than the one enjoyed in the last 3 years.

And unless there's some evidence or a logical reason to expect Torts to be a better button pusher than AV, I don't think it should deflect attention from the inferior collection of players that is a year older...

It's not anecdotal. They happened to coach the same team in the same season, with dramatically different results, though, as always with hockey (compared to baseball, I'm still baffled by the sincerity with which you approach this comparison) there's noise in the data.

And again, why are you comparing managing in baseball to coaching in hockey? This is another apples-to-spaceships comparison.

Analytical methods are probably applicable across sports. Statistical techniques definitely are, and for that hockey analysts should look to baseball. Functional comparisons are completely useless. I simply don't understand why you don't get that.

Over the long haul, defenseman likely have very little discernible impact on save percentage. Over the course of a game? Of course they do. Using individual corsi for a single game is largely meaningless.

You can watch Hamhuis and see that he's struggling a bit and causing a lot of turnovers. If he makes a dumb play that results in a 2 on 1 and a goal, it's disingenuous (at best) to suggest defensemen don't have an impact on shot quality. If a guy has a bad night and gives the puck away for 3 odd-manned rushes, he probably effected shot quality for that game. It will just even out over a larger sample of play.

Clearly Hamhuis won't continue playing this poorly -- he may even be hurt -- but he's made quite a few uncharacteristically poor plays this season.

Although there is a delay in the extension for the twins, they will be signed 3-5 years. I just wonder what the selling point here is. At the absolute best, the team must expect a retool like SJ (in terms of style, not results) starting next year, and at the worst possibly a couple of years as a draft team. I believe we can tolerate a this (not-so) youth movement for this year, just to see what can be squeezed here. But this cant happen next year, and it would be a terrible decision on the part of MG to let it happen, and for ownership to let him.

There is nothing more infuriating than seeing a GM overstay and sink the team just to pretend that there is still hope. We all remember the mid-late 90s. Like I said, we can handle it for this year, but unless we see something very new, this team must go in a different direction. This can take place with the Sedins. I can see them performing well for a couple of years more, but the cast around them will change significantly. Are they ok with that?

5 months of planned resetting? LOL Sorry, the planning took years starting with the first day Gillis and AV got here. All you're seeing is the fruits of a crappy seed planted years and years ago. It's time to sell the farm.

Yes, defence are still adjusting, especially noticed that in first two periods. On the positive side, one d-man from the Calgary game I was impressed with was Stanton, he looked really good I thought. I know it is early, but he is a tough, relatively young talent, who knows, maybe he turns out to be one of those waiver gems.

Agreed. He's pretty sound in his own zone, doesn't run around, no panic so far. Laced his skates up and that was enough to put Alberts back to the bottom rung of the depth chart. But seriously, looking like a solid pick up. Cant wait to see what his game looks like against some of the beefier teams. That will be the test, when he players against some forwards that will lean on him all game.

"The "comparison" I'm making is to show that the sabermetric community, to which the hockey analytical community should be paying close attention, scoffs at the notion that performance is based on managerial button pushing."

I agree with this somewhat but the football analytical community, to which the hockey analytical community should also be paying close attention, would stress the opposite.

The hockey community absolutely should be paying close attention to what is happening in baseball but I think it would be a mistake to assume that what holds in baseball will also hold in hockey.

"I'm not sure why you continually bring up SJ. Aren't they the definition of what we don't want the Canucks to be -- perennially good regular season teams that belly flop in the playoffs? You say that they've reset without grand pronouncements but they're not exactly in the midst of a youth movement. They've made a couple of excellent picks -- Couture and Hertl probably should both have been picked earlier -- but their system from all that I've read is fairly mediocre and their core is rapidly aging (sound familiar?). Outside of those two I'm not sure who you see as being integrated or transitioned better than the Canucks have done. Both SJ and Van are teams on the bubble with a lot to prove."

But they have an aging all-star center that is willing to take less than market value to stay. That is exactly what Vancouver wants, right?

I'm not saying Hamhuis is suddenly a journeyman. I'm saying that he hasn't been himself in these first few games. Players aren't machines. Just because they're stars doesn't mean they can't make mistakes and have off-nights. I agree with you that these three games aren't indicative of Hamhuis' talent, but chalking it up to poor luck and saying he hasn't made mistakes doesn't tell the whole story.

Defencemen have no impact on shot quality against? I have a hard time believing that. A lot of goals in this league come off of defensive errors. Defencemen might not affect how well the opposing player shoots, but they can definitely affect the time and space that player might have.

It does make some sense, but it also might not be the best statistic to measure this sort of thing. It stands to reason that the best dmen play more and face the toughest competition. That's a pretty good explanation for why it dips. I guess my only problem with defencmen sv% then is it doesn't factor in if a goal is due to mistakes made by a defending player/goaltender, by exceptional offensive play, or a combination of all three. I suppose there's not really any objective way to measure that though.

"Wouldn't it be fair to state that baseball and hockey are two very different games, the former consisting almost entirely of discrete interactions between two individuals, and the latter consisting almost entirely of flowing systems play involving chaotic interactions between (generally) 12 individuals?"

Fair.

"Further, wouldn't it be fair to describe a coach's role in such different games as, well, fundamentally different?"

In some respects.

"Could we then infer that quoting baseball statstics has almost no positive value in assessing hockey?"

To which baseball statistics are you referring?

"A fair inference would then be that quoting a baseball analogy has no value when discussing hockey?"

Something about moneypuck...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we on the same page about coaches being middle managers?

If you want to isolate the difference between Boudreau and Hunter, I need a lot more than simply putting their names side by side...

Espescially since coach A and coach B never coach the exact same team (players age for better or worse, rosters turnover etc).

As it stands, it's anecdotal.

The "comparison" I'm making is to show that the sabermetric community, to which the hockey analytical community should be paying close attention, scoffs at the notion that performance is based on managerial button pushing.

So, for example, if one wants to argue that Torts appears to be on the right track by using Garrison on the 1st PP, I can get behind that.

Aside from that, this is an inferior roster to the one that lost to San Jose a few months ago.

Specifically, but not limited to, the goaltending tandem which should be expected to produce a smaller save percentage advantage than the one enjoyed in the last 3 years.

And unless there's some evidence or a logical reason to expect Torts to be a better button pusher than AV, I don't think it should deflect attention from the inferior collection of players that is a year older...

The addition of Carter to help Richards was a good call, but it was done deep into a regular disappointing season, whereas Richards was acquired on the offseason. Management decided that changes needed to be made, so they did that trade, and they switched coaches. And they had success.

Now, we could easily attribute it to other factors as well.
- Team gels at the right time (regardless if Murray or Sutter or Bozo the Clown was coaching)
- Canucks were missing their top scorer
- St Louis was new to playoffs
- Team did not have to face Chicago or Boston on path to win.

It is very interesting to ask if coaches make a difference because teams spend a lot of money based on the assumption they do. Seems to me that Edmonton is betting the farm on it.

For Torts specifically, I like the change for a new coach (not him specifically) to see if something changes. If yes, good, and he will get credit, as it is how it works. Otherwise, the team should make decision not to follow Calgary's long path to oblivion, and instead follow Calgary's path of rebuild. In this case, the team would need to jettison/trade/bury Sedins, Kessler, Burrows, Booth, Hamhuis, and Bieksa (although I like him for leadership). I would also add Luongo, but we are stuck with him, and besides Lack, if he works out, will not be ready for years. I found the demotion of Corrado understandable, but still jarring. That simply cannot happen next year.

According to extra skater, he has the best possesion stats of any player on the team (yes, small sample - but still). Yet, here's the uneducated Canucks Nation (and John Torterlla) yapping on about Hamhuis struggling. Yes, he's made a new uncharacteristic mistakes that are visually clear to the average watcher. But this team is still better off with him ON the ice vs. off it. Yet, John *Don't know what behind the net* Tortorella benches this guy? Is he drunk.

Listen, I've made my opinion clear about Torts from the get go. I never liked the hiring. I think he's an old school coach, with mostly old school philosophies in a 'new' NHL. In his first press conference, AV talked about the Rangers need to be a strong puck possession team. In Torts first press conference, he talks about the need to 'pay the price' and shot block. Oh ya, he also had no clue what Behind the Net is. Thanks, but I'll take AV back any day of the week and twice on Sunday over this dinosaur Torts.

I'll be monitering this teams possesion stats with an eagle eye just to prove my point ever week. Torts was not, and is not the coach for this team.

I'm not sure why you continually bring up SJ. Aren't they the definition of what we don't want the Canucks to be -- perennially good regular season teams that belly flop in the playoffs? You say that they've reset without grand pronouncements but they're not exactly in the midst of a youth movement. They've made a couple of excellent picks -- Couture and Hertl probably should both have been picked earlier -- but their system from all that I've read is fairly mediocre and their core is rapidly aging (sound familiar?). Outside of those two I'm not sure who you see as being integrated or transitioned better than the Canucks have done. Both SJ and Van are teams on the bubble with a lot to prove.

I also think your arguments about the coaches not making much difference are only partially true. I think that at the pro level there is much else going on but to simply call the coach "middle managers" is misplaced at best. I'm no particular fan of Tortorella's and was not greatly fond of some of AV's tendencies -- especially the weird favoritism and scapegoating that did little to improve outcomes -- but it's clear that their coaching strategies (not the stupid shot blocking but things like the zone d and high pressure forecheck, for example) are significantly different. Will they yield different results? I'm not sure -- as you say, this year needs to be played out.